Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 16:31:40 GMT -5
Yeah, but what is American "political news" circa 2012? V.P. Biden making comments about shotguns? Marco Rubio taking a sip of water?
The point hasn't been to ask tough questions or hold government accountable (for precisely the reasons you've indicated). The point is to set up a panel of talking heads and online bloggers whose perspectives will appeal to a particular demographic.
Name the last time a major news story vis a vis US federal politics broke that wasn't either a) a leak, or b) hand-delivered to the US media by the White House press office or some government agency. In other words, name the last time a major news story broke in federal politics as the result of gritty, unapologetic journalism.
The most recent candidate I can think of was the Washington Post piece from late last year about Pres. Obama's ridiculous expenses hosting foreign dignitaries. And even that was hardly a 'major' news story.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 18:16:35 GMT -5
Yeah, but what is American "political news" circa 2012? V.P. Biden making comments about shotguns? Marco Rubio taking a sip of water? it doesn't matter. ratings are about access.. an interview with Obama sells more trucks and shampoo than no interview with Obama.The point hasn't been to ask tough questions or hold government accountable (for precisely the reasons you've indicated). The point is to set up a panel of talking heads and online bloggers whose perspectives will appeal to a particular demographic. Name the last time a major news story vis a vis US federal politics broke that wasn't either a) a leak, or b) hand-delivered to the US media by the White House press office or some government agency. In other words, name the last time a major news story broke in federal politics as the result of gritty, unapologetic journalism. within the last month, we learned about the scope of the Obama drone program, esp as it pertains to killing US citizens. that was absolutely a cover-up, and breaking it was absolutely and unapologetically against the administration's wishes. i thought it was an astonishing and horrific story.The most recent candidate I can think of was the Washington Post piece from late last year about Pres. Obama's ridiculous expenses hosting foreign dignitaries. And even that was hardly a 'major' news story. no, it really wasn't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 19:28:55 GMT -5
And it was a leaked memo by a high-level administration insider. He might as well have dumped it into Google docs for all the media had to do with it. If he was a Rush Limbaugh fan and he placed an anonymous call to Mr. Limbaugh's producers, are we to credit Mr. Limbaugh as a crack journalist for breaking the story? Journalists are supposed to be poring over data, aggressively demanding information, pulling documents out of archives, mercilessly condemning administrations that refuse to answer direct questions, piecing together patterns and jumping on discrepancies. Not sitting on their fat duffs arguing over whether Mr. Rubio's sip of water is a career-ender, waiting for truth to occasionally leak its way out from on high.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 20:48:44 GMT -5
And it was a leaked memo by a high-level administration insider. He might as well have dumped it into Google docs for all the media had to do with it. If he was a Rush Limbaugh fan and he placed an anonymous call to Mr. Limbaugh's producers, are we to credit Mr. Limbaugh as a crack journalist for breaking the story? again, this is about access, reputation, and due diligence. this informant was connected to NBC in some way (no doubt, by the process of relationship building that is part of professional journalism). THAT is access. it is access that Limbaugh doesn't have. this informant wanted his leak to be taken seriously. that is reputation- a reputation for seriousness. it is reputation that Limbaugh doesn't have. and lastly, this reporter had to stake his IOWN professional reputation on the accuracy of this leak. Limbaugh has no professional reputation to speak of, no reason to think that Limbaugh would keep his or her name in confidence. no trust, no honor, nothing. did you seriously miss all of that, or are you just trying to make trouble?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 22:52:09 GMT -5
I think you're painfully underestimating Mr. Limbaugh's reputation and influence. As for the informant being connected to NBC, that fact was never reported in any of the stories I watched. Most likely because I never followed the story on NBC, and competing news agencies tend to omit details of that nature.
As for how much 'relationship building' contributed to the leak, your confidence again far outstrips your evidence. But at least 'relationship building' is a reasonable assumption. If it turns out to be true, we can be thankful at least one reporter at one news agency is doing his job.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 22:56:49 GMT -5
I think you're painfully underestimating Mr. Limbaugh's reputation and influence. i think you are painfully underestimating my knowledge of Limbaugh. i listened to his first radio show out of Sacramento. i listened to pretty much everything he did in his first 5 years. i have seen all of his TV programs. i listened to him fairly steadily until the mid-90's. i know about his wealth and influence very well. i also know that he is widely despised. i know that he is not really respected outside of conservative circles as a JOURNALIST (though he is widely respected both inside and outside as a businessman and entertainer). and i know that his audience has dropped about 30% from it's peak. what do you know, that i don't, Virgil?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:00:47 GMT -5
As for how much 'relationship building' contributed to the leak, your confidence again far outstrips your evidence. But at least 'relationship building' is a reasonable assumption. If it turns out to be true, we can be thankful at least one reporter at one news agency is doing his job. dude- you asked me for an example of what i considered to be good journalism that did not run along partisan lines in the modern era. i gave you one, and all you can do is urinate all over it. you are not exactly inspiring me to respond to your posts, Virgil. how about "Thank You". or "oh yeah, i forgot about that". or SOMETHING other than "what would you have said if Limbaugh had broke it". i will tell you what i would have said: good for him. but i would have been skeptical about it. and for good reason. if you don't understand WHY, i can illustrate it by giving you a dozen examples of Rush getting it completely wrong based on "leaks". he has blown it so often that only his fan base will assume he is right at this point. and i say that as a former listener.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:03:18 GMT -5
As for the informant being connected to NBC, that fact was never reported in any of the stories I watched. i meant connected in a "news sense"- as in "he knew who to contact"- not "he was an agent of NBC". i don't think the point is terribly debatable.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 23:06:36 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 23:11:38 GMT -5
As for the informant being connected to NBC, that fact was never reported in any of the stories I watched. i meant connected in a "news sense"- as in "he knew who to contact"- not "he was an agent of NBC". i don't think the point is terribly debatable. The only point of any consequence is whether the source wouldn't have disseminated the information had NBC not been there (to build a relationship with him, etc.), or whether the information wouldn't have been disseminated as effectively had NBC not been there. In short: how much does it matter to the American public that NBC was "there"? We'll obviously never know. But at least if there's relationship-building going on, we can assume that NBC has some value in a probabilistic sense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:11:53 GMT -5
Virgil- i underestimate NOTHING. i know precisely how much access Limbaugh has because i listen to his show occasionally, and i monitor it far more often than that. not many politicians will risk their skin on his program. for as much airtime as he has, he has surprisingly few high level guests. Bush and Cheney are notable exceptions. with the exception of Jim DeMint, i can't think of anyone really newsworthy that has appeared on his show or been interviewed by him in the last 2 years. if you can, you just go right ahead and fill me in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:12:46 GMT -5
Limbaugh's listenership is up INFINITY in the same amount of time!!!! that means he must have captured EVERY LOST TV WATCHER!!! HOW DID HE DO IT!!! ? (gmafb) edit: Limbaugh's peak audience was within the last two years, Virgil. i think you would agree that 30% drop in (2) years is significant. wait- never mind- you are not going to agree with anything tonight, are you?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:15:11 GMT -5
i meant connected in a "news sense"- as in "he knew who to contact"- not "he was an agent of NBC". i don't think the point is terribly debatable. The only point of any consequence is whether the source wouldn't have disseminated the information had NBC not been there (to build a relationship with him, etc.), or whether the information wouldn't have been disseminated as effectively had NBC not been there. In short: how much does it matter to the American public that NBC was "there"? the difference, obviously, is in who gets the story, bro. and, of course, who doesn't. seriously, Virgil, i don't think that anything i said here is the least bit controversial. are you bored or something? why don't you play Tetris on your cell phone or something productive?
We'll obviously never know. But at least if there's relationship-building going on, we can assume that NBC has some value in a probabilistic sense. still no "Thank You"? ok- NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 21, 2013 23:29:26 GMT -5
I thought we were having a debate.
You're acting as though I'm stabbing you in the eye every time I challenge one of your arguments, and indeed I do have better things to do with my time.
Have yourself a good night, sir.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 21, 2013 23:44:38 GMT -5
I thought we were having a debate. really? my mistake. it seemed like you asked me for an example of good journalism that ran counter to sucking up to administrations, and when i gave you one, you have done nothing but bag on it as if anyone could have reported it as well as NBC did, which is complete nonsense. there is a fair chance that no agency would have even got this story, imo- but i am prepared to be proven wrong, if the opportunity comes.You're acting as though I'm stabbing you in the eye every time I challenge one of your arguments, no, i am acting as if you are bagging all over my example, which.....you are.and indeed I do have better things to do with my time. candidly, i think that trimming your nose hairs would be a better use of your time.Have yourself a good night, sir. whateva. i was actually having fun, Virgil, not getting upset. i am sorry if you didn't see the humor in my replies. but i DO think your line of attack was really annoying in this thread- so i thought playful banter would be funner than just ignoring you- which is what i tend to do when annoyed. here is what i was driving at: leaks like Deepthroat's to the Post don't just happen. journalists are singled out for being respectable, having a wide audience, and for being supportive of a certain type of journalism that is conducive to leaks. i have specified the parameters that go along with that. you disagreed with everything i said, but what you failed to acknowledge is that i actually said i would have given Limbaugh credit- just not immediately. i have actually responded the same way when tabloids like The National Inquirer say things that turn out to be true: "ill be damned- they got one right". and i have had to eat my hat for thinking otherwise. and i think both of us can say without hesitation that i tend to bag all over the blogs- i literally NEVER assume they have it right, even though they occasionally do. but all of this is beside the point. all i am saying is that the story was well covered by NBC and that it was entirely against the wishes of the Administration, who would rather this thing never came out. here is a counterexample. when the Times got wind of the warrantless wiretapping thing, they QUASHED the story at the request of the Bush administration for nearly an entire year. had the story been broken when the Times picked it up, it might have kept Bush from being re-elected. and this is from a media outlet that is considered "liberal". the question is: WHY? WHY did they do that. and i can tell you why: access. i am presuming the reason you are bagging all over my position here is that you don't even buy the premise that access is important. you are free to do that. perhaps it IS too neat and tidy of a reason. but you have to admit, it makes an awful lot of what happens FIT if i am right.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 13:11:42 GMT -5
I do believe that 'access', as you define it, is important. And I've plainly acknowledged that if a relationship between an NBC reporter and the source contributed to the decision to leak the information, then one reporter in one news agency is doing his job. The thing I'm 'bagging on' specifically is your confidence that relationship-building was crucial to the leak taking place. As far as the American public is concerned, what matters is that the information is leaked somewhere, that the public at large believes the information, and that the information is disseminated broadly and quickly. If this source was a man driven to expose an injustice, yes I agree with you that relationship-building would influence who he contacted first, but I cannot understand your certainty that he wouldn't have worked his way down through his options and leaked to somebody had this (assumed) relationship with NBC not existed. Suppose none of the major news agencies were interested in the leak and this source is left with Mr. Limbaugh as his only option. Would the source dare leak to Mr. Limbaugh? If the story had been broken by Mr. Limbaugh, would it have been taken less seriously by the American public and not been picked up by the other news agencies? What you've ostensibly said here is "Duh, Virgil, of course not! Rush Limbaugh is a dirty bum and his ratings are this and his reputation is that and no source would ever leak information to him and if they did he'd expose them and the story would be a joke." Firstly, I made the argument in this thread that your view of Mr. Limbaugh might be somewhat biased. Let's agree to disagree on that point. But more importantly, in order for you to be reasonably certain that NBC 'broke' this story, your burden of proof is that the source wouldn't have leaked to anyone--ABC news, FOX news, the BBC, or dumped it into Google docs--or that the story absolutely would not have gained as much traction or credibility had the source not leaked to NBC. This is NBC's value from the perspective of the American public. We assess: What is NBC's direct contribution to making sure the leak occurred, to making sure it was taken more seriously than if it had been broken by a competitor, and to making sure that it was disseminated faster or to a broader audience than if it had been broken by a competitor. You seem to be positive that this leak wouldn't have happened had NBC's theoretical relationship with the source not existed. I personally see no justification for this confidence, and if you had respected my explicit request in Reply #31 that I did not want a leak ( precisely for this reason that we do not know to what extent 'access' is involved), I wouldn't be "pissing on your example". If you want me to stop "bagging on you", nod my head and say you've convinced me, shift your efforts away from criticizing Mr. Limbaugh (who I invoked as hypothetical option of last resort) and onto making the argument that this leak wouldn't have happened had NBC not been there. Your example of the NYT quashing the warrantless wiretapping scandal is an excellent contribution to this vein. Instead of raving about NYT's readership dropping 30%, you're pointing out: Look. Here's an actual, recent case where a source went to the wrong "reputable" media outlet and the story disappeared. For that, I give you the gold star of "Virgil Not Pissing on Your Example".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 13:36:29 GMT -5
Oh, please- I don't have time to debate this. It's called a "trial balloon". It was leaked, deliberately, and without the President's fingerprints on it or his name being mentioned to test the waters. I'm not willing to entertain alternative fantasies that some enterprsing journalist uncovered something the President didn't want uncovered.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 13:49:36 GMT -5
Oh, please- I don't have time to debate this. It's called a "trial balloon". It was leaked, deliberately, and without the President's fingerprints on it or his name being mentioned to test the waters. I'm not willing to entertain alternative fantasies that some enterprsing journalist uncovered something the President didn't want uncovered. Let's just say I'm caught halfway between DJ's surety and your pointed skepticism.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 14:16:25 GMT -5
I do believe that 'access', as you define it, is important. And I've plainly acknowledged that if a relationship between an NBC reporter and the source contributed to the decision to leak the information, then one reporter in one news agency is doing his job. The thing I'm 'bagging on' specifically is your confidence that relationship-building was crucial to the leak taking place. As far as the American public is concerned, what matters is that the information is leaked somewhere, that the public at large believes the information, and that the information is disseminated broadly and quickly. If this source was a man driven to expose an injustice, yes I agree with you that relationship-building would influence who he contacted first, but I cannot understand your certainty that he wouldn't have worked his way down through his options and leaked to somebody had this (assumed) relationship with NBC not existed. but it is not just that, Virgil. i specifically stated that people who leak information want it to be taken seriously. why? because they are risking a lot by giving it out. there is a good chance that the person who leaks it is going to eventually be "outed". if the story dies a quiet death on some blog, it will be a lot easier for the government to go after the leaker- and make no mistake about it- this administration has no qualms about doing that. so the seriousness and credibility of the media outlet is also a factor. and the third one is security. NBC is head and shoulders over all but a couple of outlets in that respect.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 14:17:44 GMT -5
Oh, please- I don't have time to debate this. It's called a "trial balloon". It was leaked, deliberately, and without the President's fingerprints on it or his name being mentioned to test the waters. I'm not willing to entertain alternative fantasies that some enterprsing journalist uncovered something the President didn't want uncovered. i never claimed that, Paul. you should try actually reading posts sometimes rather than making up some warped fiction to suit your own views.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 14:40:04 GMT -5
Suppose none of the major news agencies were interested in the leak and this source is left with Mr. Limbaugh as his only option. Would the source dare leak to Mr. Limbaugh? If the story had been broken by Mr. Limbaugh, would it have been taken less seriously by the American public and not been picked up by the other news agencies? if the story was broken through Limbaugh, and there was no way to verify the story, it would have died a quiet death, imo. i know you don't buy this, but i follow quashed stories as a hobby, and i can tell you that i am not just saying this to defend the argument. i REALLY believe it.What you've ostensibly said here is "Duh, Virgil, of course not! Rush Limbaugh is a dirty bum and his ratings are this and his reputation is that and no source would ever leak information to him and if they did he'd expose them and the story would be a joke." no, what i am saying is that the reputation of an agency has a lot to do with how far a story travels. there is way more to it than that, of course, but that is fundamental to how things work.Firstly, I made the argument in this thread that your view of Mr. Limbaugh might be somewhat biased. yeah. i probably respect him a lot more than i should. is that what you meant?Let's agree to disagree on that point. fine by me- i can see why someone who didn't spend the first ten years of his adult life listening to him religiously might not for as high of an opinion of him as i had.But more importantly, in order for you to be reasonably certain that NBC 'broke' this story, that is irrefutable. they DID break the story. it was an exclusive, Virgil. that is how exclusive is defined. your burden of proof is that the source wouldn't have leaked to anyone--ABC news, FOX news, the BBC, or dumped it into Google docs--or that the story absolutely would not have gained as much traction or credibility had the source not leaked to NBC. no, i never claimed that- but i can see why your noodle was so bent now. what i claimed is that it would not have gotten as much traction if it was leaked to Al Jezeera or Rush- someone who is seen as FAR outside of the mainstream/respected gateways for information and news.This is NBC's value from the perspective of the American public. We assess: What is NBC's direct contribution to making sure the leak occurred, to making sure it was taken more seriously than if it had been broken by a competitor, and to making sure that it was disseminated faster or to a broader audience than if it had been broken by a competitor. that might be true, but i didn't make that claim. only that they were "top tier". if i am a leaker, that is what i want to see. i don't want to see it die in the Sacramento Bee or the Dallas Morning News (both of which are very fine papers, btw- but they publish a lot of stuff that the MSM can't stomach and won't repeat).You seem to be positive that this leak wouldn't have happened had NBC's theoretical relationship with the source not existed. I personally see no justification for this confidence, and if you had respected my explicit request in Reply #31 that I did not want a leak ( precisely for this reason that we do not know to what extent 'access' is involved), I wouldn't be "pissing on your example". no, i didn't say that either. what i said is two things: this was an exclusive story. i will presume you know what that means. the second is that NBC's audience and reputation had something to do with the fact that THEY got the exclusive, and NOT Limbaugh.If you want me to stop "bagging on you", nod my head and say you've convinced me, shift your efforts away from criticizing Mr. Limbaugh (who I invoked as hypothetical option of last resort) and onto making the argument that this leak wouldn't have happened had NBC not been there. i never said that. i have no reason to suspect that the leaker would not have made his way down the food chain. but he DIDN'T. that much is irrefutable.Your example of the NYT quashing the warrantless wiretapping scandal is an excellent contribution to this vein. Instead of raving about NYT's readership dropping 30%, you're pointing out: Look. Here's an actual, recent case where a source went to the wrong "reputable" media outlet and the story disappeared. For that, I give you the gold star of "Virgil Not Pissing on Your Example". thanks. i have about 200 stories like that in my file.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 14:53:26 GMT -5
Oh, please- I don't have time to debate this. It's called a "trial balloon". It was leaked, deliberately, and without the President's fingerprints on it or his name being mentioned to test the waters. I'm not willing to entertain alternative fantasies that some enterprsing journalist uncovered something the President didn't want uncovered. Let's just say I'm caught halfway between DJ's surety and your pointed skepticism. i seriously doubt this is a trial balloon, for the record. there is a history about this story that belies that. now it could be that Obama just had a change of heart on it, having been re-elected. i won't deny that possibility. however, given his track record of stonewalling multiple requests for information on this programme, i really really doubt it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 15:04:17 GMT -5
I understand that, but I also don't see the list of options going from NBC to 'some blog' with less than a few hundred options in between.
Even Mr. Limbaugh, whom we're considering an option of last resort, made US national news headlines for weeks just for calling a woman a 'slut'. When it comes to the three issues you've identified: security, credibility, and exposure, exposure is by far the least problematic of the three.
Regarding NBC being the best option security-wise, I won't debate you because I honestly have no idea. It would make for an interesting case study to look at all major scandals broken by news networks over the past 30 years and derive some statistics on how many of the sources ultimately had their identity disclosed, etc. At the same time, I don't see how we could come by reliable data on the number of scandals that were buried or how many sources were 'silenced'.
As I see it, the only info an informant has to go on when choosing who to leak to is a news agency's record of not exposing their sources. Even this would only tell us the likelihood of a news network publicly outing us; it wouldn't give us any idea of how likely the agency was to sit on the story and (with the complicity of the party being outed by the source) 'taking care of' the source.
Finally, regarding Mr. Limbaugh as being an option of last resort: The disparity in our views there isn't so much that I think you're underestimating his credibility as it is that I think you're overestimating NBC's credibility. Public trust in the US MSM has tanked over the last decade. During the election season, I believe it was Paul who posted 2012 polls on public trust in the media that showed 55% trust by Democrats and 20-something % by Republicans. These are not the "news with integrity" agencies from days of yore whose exposees are considered valid prima facie. In fact, I'd bet you that one of the main reasons the public trusts a federal scandal exposee from NBC in particular is because NBC is so notoriously pro-administration, they'd bury it in a second if there was even the slightest chance it wasn't true.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 15:16:53 GMT -5
Again, from the American public's perspective, who got the story is totally irrelevant outside of the security, credibility, exposure factors we've identified.
If we lived in a universe where NBC didn't exist, but the source went to ABC instead, and the story was disseminated just as quickly to the American public, and the story was taken just as seriously by the American public, then NBC's journalistic value added (with respect to this story) to the American public is precisely zero.
Argue that NBC getting the exclusive is strong evidence that NBC is "value added" in any or all of these respects, but don't construe an exclusive as incontrovertible proof that NBC shed a single drop of sweat or blood to obtain it.
Other than that, I think we're on the same page.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 15:42:07 GMT -5
Again, from the American public's perspective, who got the story is totally irrelevant outside of the security, credibility, exposure factors we've identified. of course. my point, again, is that the American public will never SEE the story if it ends up in the Dallas Morning News, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 15:45:19 GMT -5
Regarding NBC being the best option security-wise, I won't debate you because I honestly have no idea. It would make for an interesting case study to look at all major scandals broken by news networks over the past 30 years and derive some statistics on how many of the sources ultimately had their identity disclosed, etc. At the same time, I don't see how we could come by reliable data on the number of scandals that were buried or how many sources were 'silenced'. good reporters go to jail rather than revealing their sources. if the sources come to light, it is by their own admission, like Mark Felt.As I see it, the only info an informant has to go on when choosing who to leak to is a news agency's record of not exposing their sources. Even this would only tell us the likelihood of a news network publicly outing us; it wouldn't give us any idea of how likely the agency was to sit on the story and (with the complicity of the party being outed by the source) 'taking care of' the source. Finally, regarding Mr. Limbaugh as being an option of last resort: you keep saying last resort. Limbaugh may be the FIRST resort for some. but he clearly wasn't in this instance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 15:46:45 GMT -5
Again, from the American public's perspective, who got the story is totally irrelevant outside of the security, credibility, exposure factors we've identified. If we lived in a universe where NBC didn't exist, but the source went to ABC instead, and the story was disseminated just as quickly to the American public, and the story was taken just as seriously by the American public, then NBC's journalistic value added (with respect to this story) to the American public is precisely zero. Argue that NBC getting the exclusive is strong evidence that NBC is "value added" in any or all of these respects, but don't construe an exclusive as incontrovertible proof that NBC shed a single drop of sweat or blood to obtain it. . it really depends on what you mean by blood- but i am weary of this particular argument, so you can have it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 15:51:27 GMT -5
The disparity in our views there isn't so much that I think you're underestimating his credibility as it is that I think you're overestimating NBC's credibility.
did i say credibility? i think i said reputation. i guess those are the same thing. but not for me. for me reputation means that you try to get at the truth, always. that when you make mistakes, you risk your job over them. and that if you make enough mistakes, you get canned. this is clearly not the case with Limbaugh, Virgil- and if you think it is, then to paraphrase you, i don't think you know nearly enough about Limbaugh.
Public trust in the US MSM has tanked over the last decade. During the election season, I believe it was Paul who posted 2012 polls on public trust in the media that showed 55% trust by Democrats and 20-something % by Republicans. These are not the "news with integrity" agencies from days of yore whose exposees are considered valid prima facie. In fact, I'd bet you that one of the main reasons the public trusts a federal scandal exposee from NBC in particular is because NBC is so notoriously pro-administration, they'd bury it in a second if there was even the slightest chance it wasn't true.
this is an entirely separate point, as far as i am concerned. you are talking about public perception. i am talking about integrity. integrity doesn't really rely on polls. there are a lot of reasons why Americans distrust the media that have nothing whatsoever to do with reporting. it has more to do with PR- but we are getting WAY off subject on this one- so i will stick with my original point; that reputation and integrity means something in journalism, and something to a leaker. it really doesn't mean jack in opinion. jmho on that final point.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,353
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 16:00:39 GMT -5
in case you don't know, Virgil, i think the MSM is a total joke. so if you expect me to defend the excellence of their reporting, you are sorely mistaken. what the MSM reports on is mostly crap. however, again, i think that the drone story was excellent, and i am grateful that someone took the chance to publish it. it really says a lot about the Obama administration that they have no qualms about targeting US citizens, which is a level to which i would never have suspected Bush of stooping to, on a policy basis. truly disgusting.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 22, 2013 16:20:03 GMT -5
Fox's The Five Attacks MSNBC's Chuck Todd For Denying Widespread 'Liberal Media Bias'
|
|